Close Menu
    Regno Unito

    “No Shops, No Schools”: case in Inghilterra costruite senza servizi di base

    Share.
    View 31 Comments

    31 commenti

    1. StresWeeting on

      This is a consequence of focusing on producing housing rapidly and allowing developers to do what they want. It sounds like people are aware of the avenues available to force developers to build amenities into their plans though.

    2. Bladders_ on

      It doesn’t matter as long as the houses have enough parking.

    3. Bladders_ on

      It doesn’t matter as long as the houses have enough parking.

    4. Physical-Staff1411 on

      So the council have taken years to agree the revised planning permission delaying the park.

      And The developer, Vistry, points out that under its planning agreement it does not have to build a shop, pub or nursery.

      So local council surprised that their own actions has delayed a park being built. And surprised Vistry haven’t built a pub at their own expense.

      Here’s an idea, why don’t Braintree
      Allocate some of the £2.2m they’re currently holding in unallocated S106 payments
      To build infrastructure. Or speed through the allocated £1.6m they’re holding. Or organise themselves and introduce CIL?

    5. JayR_97 on

      This is why people end up protesting new housing developments where local amenities are already stretched to the limit. It’s easy to just right them off as NIMBYs but if I was already struggling to get a doctor’s appointment because all the GPs are oversubscribed I wouldn’t want an extra 200 houses added to the town either

    6. xylophileuk on

      This is most of the nimby complaints too. They want to build houses near me, there’s a petition going round to stop it. They list all these things.

      Thing is, they won’t build a shop until the houses show demand, same with busses and schools.

    7. Statham19842 on

      It’s almost like there was no planning I. Place at all. Like we invited a lot of people to live here without knowing approximately how many only to realise it wasn’t enough. Oppps.

    8. The_Sherminator2 on

      And on the other hand, there’s an absolutely massive housing estate being built where I live and the council have announced their closing the high school down that’s *literally right next to it due to the number of pupils being at “half capacity”*.

    9. Crazy_Plum1105 on

      Also like once you have the population, shops and schools come along later?

    10. StiffAssedBrit on

      Even when planners insist on amenities being built into developments, the developers always find ways to get out of installing them.

    11. HMWYA on

      Yeah, but we can’t allow people to have basic amenities near their homes, because then right-wingers will start crying about 15 minute cities making it illegal to use your car, or whatever conspiracy theory they’re buying into about sensible town planning this week.

    12. PixieBaronicsi on

      The government has a duty to fund schools.

      Banning house building in order to avoid their responsibilities is just crap.

      It’s just another strategy that some people will wheel out in their never-ending crusade to drive up house prices

    13. ok_not_badform on

      Just to add in my local area, my council is above the government target of new builds by 560%. But they’ve not made any new schools, doctors, dentists or road improvements. Also the company in charge of the new builds have blamed local businesses for not supporting the growth and pricing them. They have also left new build streets without lighting, parking, paths and roads. So all these people who have bought them are living in a building site. UK’s fucked

    14. ItsSprite99 on

      I would gladly exchange no amenities for dead money in rent.

      I’m going to die having paid millions of quid’s worth of other people’s mortgages with nothing for myself.

      Isn’t this just another round of global slavery with a few extra steps? Even slaves get fed, watered and shelter.

    15. DiligentCockroach700 on

      This is happening near me, too. Loads of new houses being built on greenfield land but no doctors, schools or shops. The nearest Drs surgery is already oversubscribed and not accepting new patients

    16. Donkerz85 on

      I work in construction and the amount of these housing projects that are built as cheaply as possibly to maximise profit and seemingly don’t give a damn about actual quality of life when you’re living in them is a disgrace.

    17. Sir_Henry_Deadman on

      You need teachers and space for the schools
      You need people who can afford to open a shop

      Both of these are lacking as much as property

    18. shizola_owns on

      I have lots of friends in a new build estate near me. Over 1,000 houses, and it literally has 2 bins.

    19. jodrellbank_pants on

      Also zero improvement to infrastructure
      A new 1000 home expansion was built near a shopping center Xmas was a nightmare
      The road outside becomes chocker between 08-10
      And 1600-1800 almost impassable
      Planers just don’t care

    20. Catch_0x16 on

      It’s a real issue in my area. They pass the public consultation period by proposing schools and shops, then change their pans after approval is granted, and the council let them get away with it because they’re afraid that standing up for local citizens might cause the developers to go elsewhere. It’s pathetic.

      Here’s an idea, if a developer has proposed local amenities with their houses (to get through planning), these should be the first buildings built, and no homes can be sold until they are finished? Doesn’t seem that unfair to me.

    22. AkihabaraWasteland on

      Nothing to do with the contractors, and probably not even the developers. It’s the council planning committees that are at fault.

    23. Henno212 on

      councils probably just see all the money they will get for the land and forget about ‘can the area support growth/ whats needed’

    24. Verbal_v2 on

      I guess it’s more profitable to squeeze the absolute maximum amount of houses onto whatever parcel of land the developers have bought up and keep the “Infrastructure” to building a mini roundabout onto the closest A or B road.

      I bet everyone knows of at least development near them where this is the case.

    25. digidigitakt on

      Well yeah. We know. We’ve been saying it for years. But the councils keep letting developers get away with it.

      You cannot blame the builders though – they’ll do whatever they can to maximise profit. Blame the councils, who are utterly useless, and central government. Who are also useless.

    26. Inglorious555 on

      This is why I don’t like it when people use the term “NIMBY” towards anyone who isn’t a fan of this

      I remember getting torn to shreds on Facebook for pointing this out ages ago, the village I lived in for a number of years everything was already overstretched, roads were so busy to the point where it doesn’t have a village vibe and they were proposing building hundreds of houses without any new schools, doctors, dentists, shops or useful roads to alleviate the extra traffic it would bring, if none of these were a thing I’d have no complaints other than it being on the biggest public field this village has unless you walk for miles out of the village, I’ve witnessed this happening to other areas too over time, I’m glad I jumped ship and moved elsewhere

    27. ash_ninetyone on

      Planning laws could be updated to stipulate that estates should have units dedicated for retail within a certain radius of housing, they could be updated the same schools within a certain population size.

      Same way that they should’ve been updated sooner for solar panels.

      But housing estates built without these, or public transport routes is in part to blame. Then garages are too small to be used for parking cars in.

      Some are faults going back to the 90s. Estates with one access road and endless cul-de-sacs so no public transport gets there. Then when future developments come along they feel isolated and unintegrated.

      Playgrounds are fine, but we don’t seem to have the same size playing fields or parks as we had built in the Victorians and we know how much housing was smashed up en masse for workers flocking to the cities.

      Ironically, some Victorian housing still has better standards and quality as new builds. They’re finished for one, have been standing for 100-200 years, and some have more space than a new build. Assuming they’ve not been shoddy renovated, especially by a property developer looking to flip it, I’d be more interested in a property of that age, or a semi from the 60s.

    28. Vivid_Departure_8948 on

      Not surprised. There have been two big housing developments near me. Neither have had any thought of non-drivers put into them- no bus routes, one has really poor pedestrian access. They just want to shove them up as fast as possible and never mind who needs amenities.

    29. Jeets79 on

      I split with my wife and the only house I could afford for me and my two daughters is in the middle of a “new build” development from about 20 years ago. The house isn’t amazing but as I’m stuck renting beggars can’t be choosers.

      The real beef is how the nearest shop from me is a 10 min drive. There are no little paper shops / corner / convenience stores nearby, you have to drive to either the petrol station or the big Morrisons!

    30. Squared-Porcupine on

      Bring back Model Villages and the like. How come the Victoria’s could plan better than developers do today.

    31. cjc1983 on

      Sign off the developments but the first foundations that go down are the GPs surgeries, schools and other social amenities. Then they can throw up the houses.

      None of this “we’ve run out of money” and then wind up the company bullshit

    Leave A Reply